Robby

Damian- I think I see what you're saying- not trying to argue, but, there were never any 17's on the front of a 968 & that wore a 205 that I'm aware of & even if there were, they would have had a 225 like the 7" Turbo S front- AND some later 968's had 993 wheels- they did have a 17X7.5 version of that. Also, no matter which front wheel people buy for 944's, a 17x7 or a 17x7.5, they almost ALWAYS use a 225. I was just assuming that anyone who would buy 17s for these cars, whether 7 or 7.5, would put 225's on them, since it is the best fit- a 205 seems a hair small to me, almost like the 245 is on the 9" rear, of course, proportionally, the 245 is even a hair smaller on the 9".... probably why the 17x9's on 968's went to 255's....too bad there's not such a thing as a 265/38.5/17...
The width tire vs the profile, etc for these cars makes matching sort of tough to get the right balance- Then, when going to really wide tires, we're adding so much weight, that the handling suffers b/c of our lack of sophisticated multi-link susp like M3's, etc... oh well... I really considered going w/265/40/17 for the rear, but, I just think the profile of the 255/40/17 is PERFECT for a street car... I WOULD like a slightly larger RD though to fill out that ugly rear fender area- it's only a certain angle, but fro that angle, the wheel well needs filing out a little... a nice 285/35/18 would do nicely, but....

Damian in NJ

Robby, we're going around and around here! I said in my first post that the 968's used a 7.5" front when fitted with 17's. We're in agreement! I had those 7.5" 993 style Cup 2 wheels on my coupe, btw.

Robby

Oh, okay... I WAS wondering though, about the original statement, etc- got me to thinking- what did the 968's w/regular 16's have tirewise? Was it the same as Turbo S? 16x7 & 16x9 w/225/50 & 245/45's?

Mike Buck

Base 968's had 205/55's on 16x7 fronts and 225/50's on 16x8 rears.

A 968 need not be a M030 car to have the 7.5/9 x 17" combo from the factory. '92-'93 17" style was the "Cup 1", '94-'95 17" style was the "Cup 2". My street wheels are 17" Cup 2's from one such '94 968


FWIW, I've run 275/40 rears with 245/40 fronts on the street for a long time. With the right suspension setup it looks and works perfectly.

Graufuchs

Check my website, theres a 968 race spec car featured.....and go to the link at the bottom of the page..He's got a ton of info on his site as well-chris

Robby

Cool- yeah, actually I had heard (& forgotten) that they had the wheel option on non-M030 cars... I didn't realize that the 993 wheels came on the '94's though- I thought it was SOME '94's & SOME 95's- kind of like some of the 951's coming w/928 flat dish wheels. Anyway, are you saying that you have 245 & 275's on your 17" 968 wheels, or, do you have aftermarket wheels? I've always wondered if you could squeeze a 245 on the 7.5" front- I'm sure you could get a 275 on the 9" thoug- that wouldn't be any different than the 225 on the 16X7 Turbo S front... Actually, proportionally, it would be SLIGHTLY easier...

David Ray

Screw the wheel talk, JC77 beat me to the punch a, "a torquey car isn't going to beat a turbo on the track". Like he said, if you're below 4K RPM's on the track you shouldn't be there. A 951 is indeed the hands down pick if you want a great handling and reliable track car, unless you're going after that 993-914. Just ask the M3 drivers at our last track event. Dust in the wind....

Robby

Turbo S ran exactly 1:41 at WS when new w/professional test pilots- the 968 CS ran a 1:43.3- that's over 2 full seconds & WS isn't the longest track either- regular 951's were b/t 1:45 & 1:46... so it's true that the low-end TQ isn't quite as important at the track- as for the M3 comment- not sure which ones you're referring too, but, a well maintained E36 will run even w/if not slightly faster than a stcok, well maintained Turbo S assuming equivalent drivers- they've got a full DECADE of technology to back them up- of course, simple chips in the Turbo S & maybe another well spent $1K in misc mods (including 968 M030 sways- that's half the $1K) & the M3 will see nothing but those unique looking 951 tail lights... Of course, if that same modded Turbo S pulls up to even the mildest modded Supra TT, then, it's the other way around- STOCK Supra TT's ran 1:39's at WS- w/all of the above mods on a Turbo S, I doubt it would break below a 1:38, & Supra TT's can easily break into the low 1:30's- stock Viper GTSR's ran in the 1:35's, & ZO6's are somewhere in that ball park... Cervelli has the WS 951 record at 1:23.x... he was running somwhere in the 1600lb spring range w/a test weight ~2600 IIRC- it's all relative... OF course, he got sick of all the 951 stuff & just closed Technodyne to run 993's w/a customer- it's all relative I guess...

Adam Richman

Admittedly I haven't seen all the race results but from memory, I have never seen a 951/951S finish in front of the front running M3s in PBOC races.

M758

Robby,
My 131 whp 944 spec cars has run a 1:39.9 at Willow Springs this july in 105F summer heat on my 4th day ever at the track. I am pretty sure I can get more time in cooler winter months if make the trip.

Bottomline is that Willow Springs is actually a quite unique track. Only 9 turns (really only 8) over the 2.5 miles. HP is big factor as well as air temp and wind speed. Overall nimbleness of a car is not a big deal at willow since there is only 1 place you need a car to make quick transitions(turn 5). This track was first run in 1953 and most other tracks have been changed or are much newer so don't have the same "wide open" feel that willow does.

BTW... The best for a realatively stock 944 was a recorded 1:36 by Rick White in 924S a few years back and the best I have see from a club level was a 1:18 in a well prepared 911 turbo.


So what it better for the track 968 or 944 Turbo?

Well both are good. 951 is better you want to stay DE and play around to make it faster since there is so much room for improvement.

968 is fine if you just want to keep it stock and have fun at the track.

Robby

DAMN! A 1.39.9 for a 944NA is FLYING! Danno, w/his modded 951 has only run just below a 1:36... Danno has also said that WS is more of a HP track too- I can't give all the specs, but, I've been collecting stats for a long time & when the 944NA first came out, the best laps the pros were getting was ~1:48- I've seen all kinds of stats for it, but never for an M3- the Contour SVT & Jetta VR6 & Turbo Talon AWD are all in the 1:46 range, etc... 1989 911 Turbo was 1:43, etc... I've also been told that one of the turns has been changed too, in the last 10yrs or so, maiking it slightly easier- is this correct? Anyway, what all have you done to your 944? How much does it weigh, etc? Susp?

Also, I'm not really saying that WS is the end-all-be-all track, or, best comparison track, etc- I was just merely quoting some relative #'s, whcih should be fairly consistent considering the cars were all new & driven by pros, etc... I also question the line about M3's being BEHIND 951's- that's hard to believe, unless the 951's were at least chipped- the E36 M3 was pretty impressive- I understand the enwest version M3 is even better, although I don't think it's panning out to be as relaible OR as much better as price would lead one to believe, etc... I like the E36's best anyway, for street cars- they just have the best composure of any car I've ever been in... Oh well, my car's in the shop right now- justr dropped it off- getting my Ledas w/springs & stiffer T-bars put on, etc... w/Lot's of other stuff- can't wait...